Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Tim Burton's Dark Shadows

Trust me, Dark Shadows -- the daytime TV show -- did not have that many fans. If it did, it wouldn't have been so quickly cancelled.

I've seen the trailer and it made me really want to see the film. (Disclosure, I have a friend in the film so I would have seen it anyway.)

I actually am old enough to remember the daytime TV show. It aired near the end of the day's schedule so that you could watch if you were just getting out of school and probably you had to run straight home to catch it.

It was in black & white and then it was in color. It didn't have a great deal going for it acting wise. David Selby and Kate Jackson were truly talented. But if others were, they hid it very well. Stereotyping didn't prevent others from career, limited talents did.

Now they were often perfect for their characters, true.

But that's about it.

I found Johnny Depp charming in the trailer and I haven't felt that way towards him in some time. (I felt he went over-the-top as the Mad Hatter not all that long ago though I'm not sure that the role could have been played any other way.)

People seem offended that the trailer indicates there will be comedy mixed in with the scary.

How is that news?

How is that offending people?

Except for The Legend of Sleepy Hollow -- my least favorite Tim Burton film, I can't think of one that is straight-forward without any humor. Even his two Batman films have humor.

I thought that was something we all loved about Tim Burton?

Instead, it appears that a bunch of over 20s want to act like teenagers and whine that Dark Shadows won't be Twilight XXIIIV.

Sorry but it looks like a great movie to me.

"TV: Why Revenge resonates" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):Gender allows women and men to root for what they relate to while
thinking it's just about a character. By utilizing gender, the show
(intentionally or not) sends a message that registers.

Emily is the Hillary Clinton speech that became the t-shirt, "For
everyone who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and
for everyone who works hard but never gives up, this one is for you!"
And if real change -- or even the faux change of the last four years --
frightens you, there's Victoria, defending what she has, fighting to
maintain her status quo.

These are the elements the show plays with and these are the
elements that register with viewers. It's why some respond gleefully
when Amanda takes down, for example, the prosecutor who knew her father
wasn't getting a fair deal. It's why another group identifies more
strongly with Victoria and, in fact, applauds her for having her son
Daniel beaten up because it's the only way the judge will agree to
bail. She does what she does, they would tell you, for the greater
good. Daniel in prison is at risk every day so better to hire some
people to beat him up and force the judge to realize he's at risk and
release him on bail and house arrest.

It registers with the worker coming home from another day of worrying
that lay-offs are just around the corner. It registers with those
outraged at the silence over the drone wars. It registers with those who
refuse to stop fighting for marriage equality.

It especially registers with those outraged at the White House
definition of self-determination: Find a tiny subgroup in a country, arm
them, train them, back them up with drones and bombing and maybe foot
soldiers because everyone has a right to self-determination, everyone
that agrees with us. In a country where violating the Constitution and
lying to the country no longer means impeachment, when checks and
balances are tossed out the window, where those who drove the economy
into the ground continue to get big bonuses, accountability is longed
for.

Television is the pulse of the nation. In the 70s, The Mary Tyler Moore Show
embodied the desires of some (women and men) to see female advancement
and reassured those who were unsure or hostile that a modern woman was
still the girl next door, M*A*S*H spoke to America's need to deal with Vietnam despite the government's refusal to address it. (Yes, M*A*S*H was set in the Korean War. No, that didn't matter.) As the decade closed, Dallas embraced the unbridled greed running through the country. Dynasty overtook it as the nation began to see the limitations to wealth (chief among them, that no one would achieve it), Knots Landing
survived because upper middle class suddenly seemed more attainable --
if only in daydreams -- than massive weatlh and as the economy
collapsed, you had Roseanne and Melrose Place. Roseanne revolving around a working class family, Melrose Place
took the glitzy night time soap opera away from the oil industry and to
an apartment complex off Los Angeles' Melrose Avenue. Two years later,
Friends arrives and becomes a massive hit at a time when the press is
writing about adult children returning home or college graduates
deciding to keep roommates and how this is normal and in societies like
Japan . . . .

Television is the pulse of the nation and currently much of the nation
is splintered. Victoria represents one section, Emily represents
another. That's what makes for a TV show that resonates.

I love what they wrote. I love the whole thing. I could post every last word. They really did something with this piece. I hope you'll read it in full.

Monday,
April 23, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri gets tight(er) with
Tehran, Nouri continues to have problems/make problems with Turkey,
Barzani calls for caution on the F-16 deal with the US, Senator Patty
Murray gets documentation that the VA wait times are as feared (and will
address the topic in a Wednesday hearing), and more.

Starting
in the US, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will hold a hearing
Wednesday on "VA Mental Health Care: Evaulating Access and Accessing
Care" starting at 9:30 am EST in the Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Room 138. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following today:

(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the
Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General released a report
that she had requested on the time it takes the VA to complete mental
health care appointments for our nation's veterans. The report
concludes, as Sen. Murray has repeatedly warned, that the wait times
faced by many veterans far exceeded that which the VA has previously
reported and the time the VA mandates. Murray will hold a hearing on Wednesday, April 25th to seek answers to these problems. The VA Inspector General will testify at that hearing.

"This
report confirms what we have long been hearing, that our veterans are
waiting far too long to get the mental health care they so desperately
need. It is deeply disturbing and demands actions from the VA. The
report shows the huge gulf between the time VA says it takes to get
veterans mental health care and the reality of how long it actually
takes veterans to get seen at facilities across the country.

"Getting
our veterans timely mental health care can quite frankly often be the
difference between life and death. It's the critical period, not unlike
the 'golden hour' immediately after a traumatic physical injury. Yet
this report clearly shows that the VA is failing to meet their own
mandates for timeliness. Clearly the VA scheduling system needs a major
overhaul. The VA also needs to get serious about hiring new mental
health professionals in every corner of the country.

"What's
particularly disappointing is that this report shows that the VA is
failing many of those who have been brave enough to seek care. It is
hard enough to get veterans into the VA system to receive mental health
care. Once a veteran takes the step to reach out for help we need to
knock down every potential barrier to care. Providing timely mental
health care is a cost of the decade-long wars our veterans have fought
and it is a cost that Congress and the American people are willing to
meet."

A
number of e-mails came in wanting the Petzel VA issue included in
today's snapshot. If there's room, it'll be at the end in full, if
there's not room, it'll be edited. I'll try to keep in the points that
veterans and veterans' family members e-mailed saying they wanted
included in the snapshot.

BAGHDAD,
23 April 2012 -- UNICEF condemns an attack that took place yesterday
on a secondary school that killed two children and injured one near the
northern Iraqi city of Tikrit.

"UNICEF
condemns this attack in the strongest terms" said Maria Calivis, UNICEF
Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. "The killing of
children is unacceptable. Attacks on schools, which are meant to provide
a safe learning environment, is a grave violation of children's
rights."

According to several reports,
five armed men stormed into the school, two are said to have entered a
4th grade class and opened fire on the students, killing 16-year-old and
17-year-old boys and injuring a third aged 16.

UNICEF
calls on the Government of Iraq to take the necessary measures to bring
to justice those responsible for this attack and take swift action to
ensure that measures are put in place to guarantee the safe access to
schools to all children in Iraq.

The violence never ends in Iraq. Alsumaria notes an attack to the northeast of Baquba in which unknown assailants shot two police officers leaving them injured and they note
that 2 intelligence service officers were shot dead (pistols had
silencers), a Salah al-Din roadside bombing left a police major and a
police captain injured and a roadside bombing west of Samarra left 1
person dead.

Meanwhile how bad
are things between Iraq and the US currently? So bad that the White
House is really trying to spin. In other words, the administration
finally gets that portraying Iraq and Iran as close friends doesn't work
for the Barack Obama re-election campaign.

In
desperate need of an answer to "What the hell is going on?" -- a
question, please note, not asked by the timid press, but by those
concerned with national security -- the White House tried to turn a
minor meeting into an event. First, they issued a press release noting
that a low-level Iraqi deputy (Huassain al-Shahristani) had met with
Daniel Poneman (US Deputy Secretary of Energy) and Carlos Pascual
(Special Envoy and Cooridinator for International Energy Affairs). Some
will wrongly tell you that he's the former Minister of Energy. No, he
wasn't. To have that post, he would have to be confirmed by the
Parliament. He was never confirmed for that post. he did previously
serve as the Minister of Oil. He was nominated for that post by Nouri
and the Parliament voted him into that post. From Minister to one of
many deupties, that's a demotion. And that demotion took place despite
the fact that al-Shahristani has been loyal to Nouri and is a member
of Nouri's political slate State of Law.

The
US bragged about spending (since 2003) $6.7 billion to help Iraqi energy
production ("$4.6 billion to the power sector and $2.1 billion to the
oil sector"). They then sent all three officials out for a photo-op and
press briefing. Again, the whole thing took place, this sudden 'event'
because of the fact that the White House is facing tough questions from
national security types and they have no answers.

Let's
go to the weekend and then come back. Over the weekend, Nouri went to
Iran to dialogue with officials in Tehran. That included the country's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iran Independent News Agency notes,
"Iraq no longer needs any help from the United States, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki on Sunday as he offered to strengthen ties between the two
neighbouring countries, which were once at war." Pakistan's The Nation adds:

Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on Sunday at the start of a two-day visit to boost relations
between their Muslim states. "If Tehran and Baghdad are strong, the
region will have no place for the United States and the Zionist regime,"
Ahmadinejad said, quoted by state news agency IRNA, in reference to
Tehran's arch-foe Israel. He said there was "no limit to the
strengthening of political, economic and cultural ties" between them. Such
moves would serve to "boost stability and security in the region,"
chimed in Maliki, who also held talks with parliament speaker Ali
Larijani.Maliki was also to see Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed
Jalili.

Dar Addustour notes
the public remarks Ahmadinejad made with Nouri by his side about how
the region was no place for enemies of freedom like the US and Israel.
TheTehran Times has Ahmadinejad calling the US and Israel enemies of the free world. (It's "Zionist regime," but he's referring to Israel.) RTT News observes,
"Observers believe Iranian leaders intend to enhance their influence in
Iraq after the pullout of U.S. troops by strengthening ties with Prime
Minister Maliki who, like a majority of Iranians, is also a Shia
Muslim."

Generally speaking, the US
government doesn't reward that sort of behavior. Call it petty or pin
it on vanity, but US leaders don't usually reward (or ignore) that sort
of public display. Now the official reason from the administration is
"Iraq's going to help us with Iran on the nuclear thing!" That's
nonsense. Iran's no where near building a nuclear weapon. That's the
talk of serial fabulists, But to briefly inhabit the world so many in
the administration do, let's pretend that they are on the verge.
There's nothing Iran's going to do that it doesn't want to do. That's
true today, that will be true when May 23rd rolls around as well. I
spoke today to two who gave Barack's 2008 campaign the 'gravitas' it so
sorely needed. They'd discussed this with the White House, Nouri's
shoulder-to-shoulder as the US is verbally attacked. They explained
that the White House's actions are seen as pushing Iraq into the arms
of Iran. They explained how vulnerable Barack still is on foreign
policy issues.

Because of those
conversations (and there were others raising the issue with the
administration today), a minor non-meeting was pimped as an event. It
wasn't an event, it wasn't significant. It took place today. Friday,
did the US State Dept's press briefing note the scheduled meeting?
Nope. In fact, Iraq wasn't even mentioned on Friday.

The
State Dept has a regular press briefing today. Did Victoria Nuland
raise the meeting in the press briefing? Nope. We'll note the Iraq
section -- reporters did ask about Iraq -- later in the snapshot but
this meeting was noted or brought up. Because it was a minor,
do-nothing meeting. It got inflated and pimped because repeat
complaints to various members of the administration today made clear to
them that they have an image problem that could hurt the 2012 election.
Please note, they're convinced that getting Nouri to meet with Iran for
the nuclear talks is a great thing for knowledge. But the complaints
made them see there was political fallout so this minor meet-up was
promoted as an event to try to say, "We're still close!"

Marina
Ottaway: Finally -- and this is the last comment that I want to make
in terms of agency -- you also have to look at the neighboring
countries. And here I -- and here I truly disagree with the previous
speaker. I think the situation in the region is going to make the -- is
going to aggravate the internal problem that Iraq is facing -- because,
like it or not, the regional -- the politics of the region is moving in
the direction of sectarian -- of sectarian conflict. The -- talk about
the -- you know, the Iran, Iraq, Syria -- one should say, Hizbollah,
more than Lebanon -- sort of arc, if you want; the Shia crescent of
which King Abdullah of Jordan spoke at one points -- which is coming
back with a vengeance. And I would argue that the polices of most
countries -- of neighboring countries towards Iraq are colored, and are
determined essentially, by this -- by the sectarian perspective. The
Gulf countries have resisted embracing the new government in --
essentially embracing Iraq, because they are perceiving Iraq as being a
pawn of Iran. Whether or not it is true, they are certainly
contributing to pushing -- to pushing Iraq in the arms of Iran. But
there is no doubt that the policies of the Gulf countries towards Iran
-- excuse me, towards Iraq -- are driven by this perception of what is
the relationship between Iran and Iraq.

That's Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Marina Ottaway speaking at The State Of Iraq
conference last February. If she's correct (and she quite often is),
the weekend love-fest really didn't help Iraq draw closer to all their
other neighbors.

And it's not like Iraq doesn't have problems with its other neighbors. UPI notes,
"Iraqi officials announced Monday they summoned Turkey's ambassador in
Baghdad in reaction to disparaging remarks made last week by the Turkish
prime minister." What's going on?

Friday,
Nouri al-Maliki abandoned his brief 13 day attempt to be nice. He
lashed out declaring Turkey to be an "enemy state" of Iraq. Saturday Ayla Jean Yacklery (Reuters) reported,
"Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday regjected charges he
sought to inflame sectarian divisions in Iraq with recent criticism of
its government and accused his Iraqi counterpart of trying to gain
'prestige' in an escalating war of words between the neighbours." Al Jazeera added:

"We
don't differentiate between Sunnis or Shias. Arab, Kurd or Turkmen,
they are all our brothers," Erdogan told reporters in comments
reported by the NTV news channel."If we respond to Mr. Maliki, we give him the opportunity to show off there. There is no need to allow him to gain prestige." Turkey,
which is majority Sunni, has been seen as a key ally and even a role
model for Iraq, because of its secular constitution and close relations
with the West, including membership in NATO.Iraq is Turkey's second
largest trading partner after Germany, with trade reaching $12 billion
last year, more than half of which was with the semi-autonomous
Kurdistan region.

With everything else Iraq is
facing, you'd think Nouri al-Maliki would have the brains not to also
antagonize one of its neighbors.

QUESTION:
Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh
words for Turkey. And now both of them are your allies, you have
invested a great deal in Iraq. I mean, they're -- he's pushing the
envelopes. You don't have any comment on that?

MS.
NULAND: We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased
dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey. There are
mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have
endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them
to work through the issues that they have.

Middle
East observers are expressing concern that the row between the two
neighbors is a sign of growing Sunni-Shiite tension in the region, as
predominantly Sunni Turkey lines up against Maliki, Iran and Bashar
al-Assad's violent suppression of Syria's mainly Sunni population.

Mehmet Seyfettin
Erol, head of Ankara's International Strategic and Security Research
Center (USGAM), says that Maliki's recent comments must be viewed in the
context of his government's alliance with the Shiite regime in Iran.
Maliki, who is currently on an official visit to Tehran, "is paying
lip-service to Iran, which is trying to implement Shiite political
dominance in the region," Erol told Turkish daily Today's Zaman. In
response, he said, Turkey is being forced to protect Sunni rights in the
region.

Let's go back to Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Marina Ottaway speaking at The State Of Iraq conference last February.

Marina
Ottaway: In Iraq today, I think it's becoming more and more
appropriate to speak not of the Iraqi government, or even of a
Shia-dominated government, or even a Dawa-dominated government -- but
rather of a Maliki regime. This is the newly dominant force in Iraqi
politics; these are the Malikists. They're an analog to the Saddamists
in many way -- or the Saddamiyoon, as Iraqis knew them. And so I'd like
to coin the term today, the "Malikiyoon." I think this is something
that Iraqis will recongize. And these are the officials and the
operators who have enabled Prime Minister Maliki to consolidate control
of state power and gradually marginalize the other political blocs as
they've done it -- while neutralizing, one by one, the checks and
balances that the Iraqi constitution was meant to contain on just such a
consolidation of power. So I'd like to talk a little bit -- to dig
down a little bit and talk some about where we can find the
"Malikiyoon," who they are, how they behave and what policies they'll
follow, and what that will mean for Iraq and the rest of us, my best
guess. So, first in aquiring power in Iraq, the "Malikiyoon" have
focused on the security and intelligence apparatus, the coercive arms of
the state. And this is where you can most easily find them. You can
find them at the top of the ministry of defense, at the top of the
ministry of the interior, at the top of the intelligence services. You
will find them in control of the Iraqi special operations forces and in
the police commandos. And any forces that can -- that, really, they
have coalesced into a new sort of coup-proofing set of forces -- almost a
new Special Repbulican Guard. Now, next, who are they individually?
Well, individually they are not really the Dawa party. This is not
really the Dawa party. They are at the center. They're Maliki's
family, including his son and son-in-law most significantly. They're
his personal advisers, both official and unofficial -- so those that are
in the prime minister's office and those that are -- that are in
Maliki's house, you know, in the diwan late at night making decisions.

Aswat al-Iraq reports,
"Kurdish region president Masoud Barzani returned yesterday night to
Arbil province at the end of his external visit to Bulgaria, USA,
Hungary and Turkey, sources said here. Barzani discussed with the
Turkish president Abdulla Gul the relations between Kurdistan and
Turkey, as well as the situation in Iraq and Syria."

The visit
was a success for Barzani. It became an embarrassment for Nouri
al-Maliki who first attacked Barzani early last week and cattily
insisted that Barzani had Kurds who 'speak ill of him.' Alsumaria reports that Barzani has declared he could meet with Nouri to dicuss the political crisis 100 times and it would change nothing. In addition, he states
that the Kurdistan Region is in danger and that he is going to begin
talks immediately with Kurdish parties and Iraq President Jalal
Talabani on the topic of independence. Rudaw speaks with Barzani and reports:

"I
have met with Maliki many times. I don't have any personal problems
with him. I have respect for him. But my experience with Maliki is that
even if I met him 100 more times, it wouldn't bear any fruit because he
has not implemented any of his promises," said Barzani in response to a
question by Rudaw.

"Nothing
but dictatorship threatens the territorial integrity of Iraq,"" warned
Barzani, speaking to journalists in his office in Salahaddin, a resort
town northeast of Erbil.

Relations
between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad authorities
have been tense recently over a range of issues, especially the
unsettled oil and gas disputes.

"If
all the people of Iraq are happy with this situation, they can do as
they please. If the people of Kurdistan and all Kurdistani parties are
content with the current situation and don't see any threat, I have no
personal problems. But I must clear my conscience with my people,"
Barzani said about his recent strong remarks against Baghdad
authorities, especially PM Maliki.

QUESTION:
About the -- just a follow-up about an oil agreement made by
Exxon-Mobil and KRG. Since it's an American company, the Exxon-Mobil,
this agreement is excluding Baghdad Government's role in the use of oil
in KRG region. Do you have any comment? How do you see this agreement?
Is it threatening to unity of Iraq, or how do you see Exxon-Mobil and
KRG oil agreement?

MS.
NULAND: We've talked about this issue many times. Our position on it
has not changed, that we think the lack of a comprehensive oil agreement
is holding Iraq back, that we've called on all sides to continue to
work through what is necessary to come up with a national oil policy.
And we also regularly counsel our companies, including Exxon, about the
fact that there isn't such an agreement. So I think we'll have a little
bit more to say on the issues of Iraq and energy later today. We're
going to have -- we have the U.S.-Iraqi energy dialogue going on, and
we'll have some folks briefing later this afternoon on those things.

Thursday
the International Crisis Group noted that Iraq still had no oil &
gas law and the need for one in a typical ICG report -- meaning
one-sided with lots of bowing and scraping to Nouri (that's a nasty
habit of ICG's). From the Executive Summary of "Iraq and the Kurds: The High-States Hydrocarbons Gambit:"

But
the Kurds face a problem. While they pursue an independent oil policy
and have taken important steps toward that end by drafting their own oil
law in 2007 and signing over 40 contracts with foreign oil companies
without Baghdad's input or approval, they lack the means to export their
oil without Baghdad's help and therefore its permission. To date, the
federal government has used its control over the national pipeline
network, as well as its hold on the treasury and budget, to rein in the
Kurds' ambitions.

Hemmed in by
Baghdad and anxious to become economically self-sufficient, Erbil is
turning its eyes to another potential outlet for its oil: Turkey. Masoud
Barzani, the Kurdish region's president, reportedly told foreign
visitors to his mountain redoubt that if Maliki remains in power beyond
the 2014 parliamentary elections, the Kurds would go their own way. Not
coincidentally, 2014 is when the Kurdish region expects to complete
construction of its own strategic oil pipeline, one that skirts (federal
government) Iraqi territory before reaching the border with Turkey. For
Kurdish leaders, economic dependency on a democratic neighbour with an
attractive window on the West is far preferable to a continued chokehold
by a regime displaying authoritarian tendencies -- all of which raises
the question of what Ankara would do if the Kurds ask it to take their
oil without Baghdad's approval.

For
the record, Nouri's making no moves on resolving the disputed
territories. Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution calls for him too
but he ignored that call in his first term as prime minister. I would
assume the Kurds are being advised to take action and, more importantly,
advised that if they do not, with the issue being unresolved and no
action on the Kurds part, there is a strong possibility that an outside
body would award the region to the central-government based in Baghdad.
Legally that could happen. I would assume the Kurds are familiar with
this -- I know they're familiar with the repeated calls over the year
for an international body to step in and resolve the issue -- and that
this is what's prompting them to act. But the ICG always sides with
whom they see to hold power and they're not usually very skilled in the
law.

Today, AFP reported
that Barzani has also stated that he opposes the US sale of F-16
fighter planes to Nouri and that, "The F-16 must not reach the hand of
this man. We must either prevent him from having these weapons, or if
he has them, he should not stay in his position."The value of the
F-16s on the world stage includes the fact that the US and its allies
are the ones who know how they work. Nouri's close relationship with
Tehran should be seriously factored in before the sale moves forward.
If Nouri has F-16s, it's a pretty good conclusion that Tehran then has
all knowledge of F-16s. The issue of Barzani and the F-16s was the
first of three issues the press raised at today's US State Dept press briefing.

QUESTION:
On Iraq, KRG President Maliki criticized an arms sales which will be
made by U.S. to Baghdad Government -- about the F-16 sales. And he said
to freeze the sales until there will be a solution between KRG and
Baghdad Government because he's suspicious that the Maliki government
can use this F-16 against KRG. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. NULAND: I'm sorry. Who made these initial comments?

QUESTION: President Barzani.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: KRG president.

MS. NULAND: I'm
not going to get into the middle of intramural efforts between the
various Iraqis. I think you know where we are on this, that we want to
see the disagreements that they have with each other also settled
through dialogue and through a big roundtable process that they've all
pledged to join but that still needs to get off the ground.

QUESTION: Is that F-16 sales will go on?

MS. NULAND: I don't think there's any change in our policy.

Intramural? Well that's about how serious the State Dept takes the issue.

Last week, Gretchen Gavett (PBS' Frontline)
discovered the issue of the VA's decision to employ an additional 1,900
workers for mental health and she cited the Undersecretary of Health
Robert Petzel. She didn't know, apparently, that the House and Senate
Veterans Affairs Committees had repeatedly urged and suggested more
workers and were repeatedly told that there were enough -- this took
place over and over in open hearings. Nor did she grasp, apparently,
that Petzel wasn't suddenly doing something because he'd realized there
was a shortage, he was doing it as a result of the actions of Senator
Patty Murray who chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. As her
office noted last week in a press release:

Today,
U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee, made the following statement after the VA announced that it
would be moving to hire 1,600 mental health care professionals. The
announcement comes just days before the findings of a major VA Inspector
General report that Senator Murray requested on long wait times for VA
mental health care are expected to be announced. VA's action is welcome
news to Senator Murray who has held multiple hearings over the past
year on overcoming barriers to VA mental health care. Murray will hold a
third hearing on this subject in order to hear the Inspector General's
findings on Wednesday, April 25th.

Robert
Petzel isn't someone worth citing -- as a number of members of the US
Congress have learned. I count 18 members who have strongly called him
out in public hearings since 2009.

He's been called out
for his management or 'management' and he's been called out for his
testimony. The House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing May 3, 2011
about the VA infecting veterans who came in to be treated. This was a
very serious issue. We're noting this exchange between Petzel and
Ranking Member Bob Filner and we're noting it in full because it was a
serious issue -- veterans going to a VA facility for care were at risk
of illness or disease (including AIDS).

Ranking
Member Bob Filner: Dr. Petzel, you're here as the representative of the
VA. We've gone through this before, sir. It seems to me your job here
should have been -- and we have Congress people from all the districts
that have been effected -- was to begin to restore some trust and
confidence in your institution. I'd hate to take a poll. If I did, and I
said, "How many people now have confidence everything is fine in your
VA hospital?," I doubt if anyone would raise their hand. You said
everything is fine. It's not true. Simply not true. You talk about all
of these transparent procedures and these-these Journal -- New England Journal
best practices, and yet every time something happens, we have
disaster. We don't have a way of communicating. We don't have a way of
dealing with the personal concerns. We don't have any knowledge that
anybody's been reprimanded. Now you've got three. We've been going
over this for years and now we've got three. And we still -- You have
never told this committee those figures before as far as I know. But,
Dr. Petzel, we've gone through this before. We've raised concerns in our
opening statements. You read your opening statement as if we never
said anything. So you never addressed issues of accountability, you
never addressed issues of communication -- whether within your agency
or with veterans or with this Committee. I-I-I-I've gone through the
time lines with almost every one of these [Congress] members here and
their hospitals. You say panels get together to decide "should we
disclose, what should we disclose, who should we --?" It looks to many
of us like they get together to decide "What do we keep secret from our"
-- You know, you keep shaking your head "no." But why did it take 8
weeks at St. Louis -- where Mr. Carnahan will raise the issues -- why
did it take 8 weeks for that panel to decide, we're going to tell people
that we have almost 2,000 people infected -- possibly infected with
HIV? It took two months before you guys decided that. I would have --
And the Secretary [of the VA, Eric Shinseki] wasn't notified, as far as I
know, in his words to me, in that whole period of time. So it sounds
like you're sitting there deciding, "What's the minimal amount of
information that we can give out so people don't get upset with us?"
Rather than the maximum. I would have -- that first day -- I would have
had the Secretary had a press conference that said, you know, "We have a
possibility of X-hundred or thousands of people, we're going to get to
you right away, we want to make sure this is happening." And put
pressure on yourselves to become public. Because there's no pressure
for you to do anything. We didn't know anything. The Secretary didn't
know anything. I don't know if you knew anything. Because these
guys are going, "How do we keep this secret for as long as possible?
Maybe we don't have to disclose at all?" Because your question was:
"Should we disclose?" Not how to do it. And then, as I said, your
whole disclosure process is as if everybody knows all your acronyms and
your-your initials for everything, all these SPDs and RMEs, as if the
patients know what's going on. They get a letter. I've seen these
letters. It says basically -- it's not this bald, but almost -- "You may
have HIV." They get a letter. It may have even gone to a wrong
address. For 1500 people, as I said to you earlier at a hearing, you
should have had 1500 of your 250,000 employees, assigned each one to
somebody, call them, call them, go visit them, find out where can they
come back, when can they get their blood tests, treat them as if they
may have HIV. And they're scared to death they're going to die and you
send them a letter. And there's no one there necessarily to answer a
phone call when they call back cause you don't have people working this
like case managers and one person to five people. I think you should do
one-on-one. But what you described as this open, transparent process
does not come through. And everyone of these people [points to members
of Congress] has constituents which I bet confirm what I just said.
And even if it's perception and not reality, that, that's just as bad.
That you took forever, you weren't very personal in your notification,
you weren't very clear about what it is that they might have, you didn't
follow up in a way that was very quick and then we don't know anything
about accountability. We know nothing from basically what you said
today. And you guys have got to develop a new system. Whether it's
talk -- You know, we just killed Osama bin Laden and they notified 8
members of Congress and the Committee and they kept that. Well maybe
you should notify all the Chair and Ranking Member of the Veterans
Committees about what you're doing about your personnel. But there is
no sense that you have done anything. And we don't know -- Nobody in
Dayton, nobody in St. Louis, nobody in Miami, nobody in New Jersey,
nobody in Tennessee knows anything about that accountability. And I
doubt anybody in the system knows anything about it, so they don't think
there's any accountability. So I wish you would address these issues.
We've gone over them for several years. You and I have gone over these
exact issues several times in hearings and you do the exact same thing.
You give me a prepared statement. 'Everything's fine.' You move the
discussion into these arcane things about SPDs and RMEs and you neglect
the basic issues of communications and accountability that are at the
heart of the confidence that our people have in your system. You may
comment in any way you want.

Dr.
Robert Petzel: Uh, thank you, Mr. Filner. The, uhm . . . What I want to
do is, uh, first talk about our, uh, notification process. The, uh,
the process by which we determine who ought to be notified or who might
be at risk, as I said before, is an industry standard. I will stand by
that process under any circumstance. It takes some time but it is
transparent and it is weighted heavily in the favor of --

Ranking Member Bob Filner: Nobody knew about St. Louis for 8 weeks.

Dr. Robert Petzel: I'm --

Ranking Member Bob Filner: Eight weeks.

Robert Petzel: Sir.

Ranking Member Bob Filner: And I'm if that's industry standard, we shouldn't be following industry standard.

Dr.
Robert Petzel: Sir, I'm not talking about the communication, I'm
talking about the process that we go through. It is very thorough and
it's weighted on the side of being abundantly cautious to be sure that
we take into account every possible risk. The process by which we
disclose to patients involves letters, phone calls and case managers.
Particularly in the instance of St. Louis, every single individual that
was effected was called, they were offered a case manager, there was a
case manager that involved -- in fact, in some instances, the leadership
of the medical center. I will admit that we've learned figuratively
since --

Ranking
Member Bob Filner: Sir, that conflicts exactly with what you said to me
at St. Louis. The Chairman was there, Mr. Carnahan was there, Mr. Lacy
-- Clay [US House Rep William Lacy Clay] was there, sorry, sir. Mr.
[John] Shimkus was there. You never mentioned the word case manager,
you never mentioned mentioned that they were called. Is that right,
Russ? [Carnahan nods his head in agreement.] We-we went through this
discussion with you. The first word I said to you was case manager. I
said to you, "Why don't you have case managers?" You said, "Yeah, we'll
look at that." We're both going to review your testimony in St. Louis
because it's contrary to what you just said now.

US House Rep Phil Roe is also (medical) Doctor Roe. This is part of what he had to say in that hearing:

US
House Rep Phil Roe: One of the things that we have to sell in medicine
is trust. Our patients need to trust us. They need to trust the VA that
that's where the quality of care and transparency, Mr. Filner is
absolutely 100% correct. I can assure you that when I had a problem go
wrong in my shop when I practiced medicine, not the clerk that answered
the phone made the call to the patient, I made the call to the patient. I
called them up. I explained to them. I had them come in and tell them
what was going on. And I can tell you, with 1500 people, that could
have been in a large institution with multiple people, I would have had
the highest level people contacting someone when they think they have
HIV or a potential life threatening condition.

And the numbers aren't really going
down. At some point, department heads are going to need to tie in
accountability. They're going to need to set goals and they're going to
need to fire those -- at the top the deputies -- who cannot meet
those goals because the American people are sick of this across the
board. In fact, if Barack Obama or anyone else wanted a winning talking
point, that's what they could propose. It would probably work better
for a Mitt Romney, Jill Stein or Ron Paul or anyone else who hasn't been
president for the last four years, but it would work for Barack as
well.